Arya Bhadrabahu

Author(s): M A Dhaky
Publisher: Z_Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_1_002105.pdf and Nirgranth_Aetihasik_Lekh_Samucchay_Part_2

Page 17

124
M. A. Dhaky
Jambu-jyoti
it positively looks away from Bhadrabāhu's times. These chapters, in fact, are younger in age. It, therefore, raises even graver doubts about the veracity of its long believed attribution to Bhadrabähu. It likewise presents a somewhat more complex situation78, needing a separate investigation involving elaborate and an in-depth discussion.
Before closing this section, it may be noted that the Southern tradition does not attribute the composition of any work to Bhadrabāhu. It only believes that he was responsible for introducing and propagating the Nirgrantha religion in Southern India?' And later, in the eighth century, Padmanandi of the anvaya Kondakunda, known from the 13th or at most the 12th century as Kundakundācārya' in the Digambara sections in north India, is said to have regarded Bhadrabahu as his 'gamika-guru' or a teacher by virtue of his being, as he may have believed, in the Bhadrabāhu's sectarial traditions
VI
Śruta-Kevali Bhadrabāhu, Candragupta, Sravanabelgola, and Southern Jaina Traditions
Fairly considerable literature has grown in English and in German, not to say in Hindi and in Kannada which revolve around the Southern Nirgrantha traditions that associate Bhadrabāhu and Candragupta on one hand and on the other hand associate the two to the famous tirtha site of Sravanabelgola inside ancient Gangavādi, located in Southern Karnataka The trends of discussions and conclusions drawn therein reveal a picture in which some scholars agreeing, others rejecting, a few sitting on fence while some sensing not enough strength in available evidence yet willing to concede credibility to the tradition. When all is said and done, some among the noteworthy writings which dwell on this subject at some length, impress the reader as either one-sided since they refuse to use, even allude to, sources which go against their cherished intentions (or declare them as late although they are not), often indeed uncritical or insufficiently critical or wanting in an objective as well as common sense approach. Perhaps the only, rather very partial, exceptions are the much too succinct statements within the discussion by the editorial team of the Epigraphia Carnatica Volume II (Mysore 1973) and a brief observation by A. M. Ghatage®
The earliest, and indeed crucial, evidence in the Southern context is the Sravanabelgola Sanskrit inscription No.1 (c. 600 A. D.), which more or